Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's Terrible Tax Plan

Clinton's refusal to reform the corporate income tax is stunning.


Hillary Clinton
Michael Bryant/TNS/Newscom

Hillary Clinton recently laid out her plan for the economy, which boils down to more government, more spending, more taxes, more regulations, and more red tape. It translates into more debt and less growth. Some of the most outrageous provisions of her plan are those that target U.S. corporations abroad.

To be fair, Clinton's policies are very similar to those of President Barack Obama. They both want to prevent U.S. companies from leaving the country through a process called inversion. They both also fundamentally misunderstand the reasons behind inversions and try to fix the perceived problem by treating the symptoms rather than the causes.

The reason companies engage in inversions (usually by merging with a foreign firm to pay taxes abroad instead of at home) is obvious to most economists: U.S. companies doing business overseas are put at a terrible disadvantage because of our punishing corporate income tax system. The United States has the highest rate of all the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries (35 percent at the top federal level and close to 40 percent when you add state taxes), including all the big welfare states in Europe.

The United States also taxes income on a worldwide basis. This means that a U.S. company operating in Ireland pays the Irish rate first on its Irish income and then will pay the U.S. rate minus the tax paid in Ireland when it brings the income back to the United States. Contrast that with a French competitor doing business in Ireland. The French company pays the low Irish rate of 12.5 percent, period. To cope with the penalty or to try to remain competitive, U.S. companies are either not bringing their income back to the United States (there's supposedly $2 trillion of earned U.S. income abroad) or performing inversions.

As it happens, there is wide bipartisan support to reform the corporate income tax. But it wouldn't happen under a President Clinton. Her plan would change a key rule to make it more difficult to invert. Another portion of her plan would limit the deductibility of interest when it is supposedly used as a tool to avoid American taxes. Never mind that it would be up to the government to decide when the use of such a deduction would be appropriate or not.

Another provision is an "exit tax" on companies that relocate outside the United States without first repatriating earnings kept abroad. This one is particularly awful because it amounts to demanding a ransom from companies when they decide that enough is enough and that the survival of their business requires them to effectively change their citizenship.

Interestingly, Clinton may have gotten this authoritarian idea from her husband, who enacted a law in 1996 that imposes an exit tax on people who decide to move abroad and change their citizenship to avoid the same punishing tax system. It's worth noting that the United States is one of the very few countries taxing individuals on worldwide income.

What's stunning is that Clinton's refusal to reform the corporate income tax doesn't fit well with her claim that she wants to help American workers and that she cares about rejuvenating left-behind communities, such as Detroit. The economic literature shows that workers are shouldering the burden of the corporate income tax.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, the American Enterprise Institute's Kevin Hassett and Aparna Mathur note, "Our empirical analysis, which used data we gathered on international tax rates and manufacturing wages in 72 countries over 22 years, confirmed that the corporate tax is for the most part paid by workers." In a piece appropriately called "The Cure for Wage Stagnation," they also cite works by the University of Michigan and Harvard University, among others. For instance, they write, "In (a) 2009 paper, (Kansas City Fed economist Alison) Felix and co-author James R. Hines of the University of Michigan discovered that the effects of lower tax rates are especially strong for union workers."

You would think that Clinton would be more favorable to helping low-income Americans and union workers in particular. If she were, the way to go would be to reform the corporate income tax, not to arbitrarily prohibit companies from moving to where tax laws are less punitive.


NEXT: Of Course Sports Boosters Shouldn't Judge Campus Rape Cases. Neither Should Title IX Administrators.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily… You can earn from 9000-14000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail… http://bit.do/ctDjs

    2. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily… You can earn from 9000-14000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail… http://bit.do/ctDjs

  1. The raging cunt only wants to burden corporations that don’t directly donate to the Clinton Foundation.

    1. Pretty much. I read her whole tax plan. It’s all the usual democrat bullshit. It will devastate most of out economy. I’ll take my chances with Trump if it comes down to it. No way I will ever support Cankles.

      1. Then you’re dumb.

  2. Her plan will lower inequality by making everyone poorer!

    Better to be equally poor than unequally rich!

  3. Clinton’s refusal to reform the corporate income tax is stunning.

    And super status quo. Which makes her presidential.

  4. They both want to prevent U.S. companies from leaving the country through a process called inversion.

    So, build a kind of wall, eh?

    1. More like turn the guns in the other direction on the existing walls.

    2. I see what you did there.

  5. Along these lines:

    Has anyone ever used an alternative “insurance” plan like the mutual sharing organizations? Or do you have any experience with them as a provider?

    1. Yes, we use Liberty Healthshare since it’s one of the ‘pre-existing’ companies approved under ACA. It’s not so much a provider as a way to get some expenses covered. You’re going to pay everything out of pocket, along with some monthly premium, and they will share expenses occasionally. Doctors and hospitals struggle to deal with it sometimes (it’s not really insurance, but they can submit bills to it that just come back to you) and we’re starting to find that you’re normally better off just telling the doctor you’re uninsured and will pay cash (since you may get a discount) and then submitting the receipts to the healthshare and sometimes they cover a bit and sometimes not.

      Ours covers one wellness doc visit per person per year and then ‘sharing’ kicks in at some point I can’t recall (several thousand) if you have something happen. We’re generally healthy so I can’t vouch for its effectiveness if you have frequent medical care or big problems. Broken bones are about the extent of the expenses we’ve rung up.


      1. (cont)
        Generally, it works for us. Premiums are in the ballpark of 4,800 per year. We have 5 kids under 15yo and when we finally got off the Anthem escalator 2 years ago (approx), premiums were at 1,200 per *month* and climbing. I’m self-employed so no help there. The 2% penalty for truly being uninsured is big enough for us that we needed something plus this does offer some catastrophic backup if something unexpected happens.

        Overall, for our situation I would do it again, but it’s not insurance and takes a little getting used to. Plus you get to see just what a clusterfuck healthcare is these days up close and personal.

      2. Thanks Indy. Liberty is the one I am looking at. I’d like to get an actual catastrophic insurance plan. High deductibles don’t bother me, but exorbitant premiums with high deductibles are ridiculous.

        My concern is what happens when there is an actual need for cancer treatment or something similar. As I read it, Liberty is not obligated to pay anything, so I am apprehensive.

  6. Slightly OT comment on something from an earlier thread:

    All-Seeing Monocle|8.18.16 @ 10:36AM|#

    I agree that it’s not just because she’s a woman. It’s because she’s a democrat. The committed followers on both sides are going to rationalize their way into voting for their party regardless of any appeals you make to their conscience. I was reading a jezebel thread just yesterday where they were going on at length that yes, it’s kind of bad that Bill is a serial rapist and Hillary played the role of enabler, but they were all in complete agreement that they had to reluctantly overlook that because otherwise a non-Democrat might win the most important election of all time.

    Nothing you can do or say will keep them from rationalizing their way into voting for her.

    I ran into that first hand with my GF, who has repeatedly said now that Bernie is out, she’ll hold her nose and vote for Hillary.

    Me: No matter what?

    Her: Yeah.

    Me: Name something that Hillary could do that would make you not vote for her.

    Her: Maybe if the Republicans ran someone who was not insane.

    Me: Name one such Republican.

    Her: There are none. They’re all nuts.

    Me: OK, what if Hillary publicly and gleefully drowned a sack full of puppies?

    Her: I’d still vote for her. What other choice do we have?

    Me: Gary Johnson.

    Her: He can’t win.

    Me: OK, fine. What if Hillary publicly drowned YOUR dog?

    Her: (A bit heatedly) I’m still gonna vote for her.

    1. “You could just not vote for anyone, you know”

      1. “That’s the same a voting for the other guy!!!!”

      2. “You could just not vote for anyone, you know”

        I brought that up too.

        Her: Not voting is not an option.

        Me: How about that time we were 50 miles outta Austin and I offered to delay our road trip and turn the car around so you could go vote to drive Uber out of town?

        She: That was too far too drive.

        Me: So, not voting is not an option unless it’s too inconvenient?

        Her: Let’s talk about something that’s not politics.

        1. Her: Let’s talk about something that’s not politics.

          “I haven’t really thought about my opinions that closely; I’ve arrived at my various destinations by feel alone.”

          1. Democrats vote based on feelings.

            Libertarians vote based on facts and logic.

            Republicans vote based on … I’m not sure what any more, since The Donald.

            1. Feelings, but it’s different from when Democrats do it, somehow.

    2. The stupid ones are definitely keepers. Ask Crusty.

    3. Me: Name something that Hillary could do that would make you not vote for her.

      Her: Maybe if the Republicans ran someone who was not insane.

      Me: Name one such Republican.

      Her: There are none. They’re all nuts.

      This was pretty much the identical exchange between Nick G. and Rachel Maddow/Maher on the latter’s show when Nick accused them of being so retarded-partisan that they were no longer capable of any rational evaluation of anything.

      1. Nick could carry on both sides of that conversation.

    4. Are… are you dating my sister-in-law? My brother’s gonna be so pissed.

    5. I sincerely hope she does *that thing* you like that no other woman has done for you.

      If Hillary Clinton publicly and gleefully drowned your girlfriend, I’m not convinced the world wouldn’t be a better place.

      1. There’s like 50 million people in this country who think like that about politics. It’s based on a mistaken notion that government is NOT the mafia with better PR, and that taxation is somehow not theft.

        1. You’re right, of course.

          I’m convinced it comes down to thinkers vs feelers.

          1. I have always said that INTJs would be the first against the wall, but maybe it should be INFPs instead.

            1. Go on…?

              I’m just curious why INTJ’s would be first. Future Mr. Riven is an INTJ, and he’s quite charming.

        2. Shorter: if you like black women — if you love the smell and taste of black pussy — you better resign yourself to whoever you choose thinking like this about politics.

          Tradeoffs, my friend. And priorities.

          1. I just can’t imagine wanting to share my life with someone who I would constantly be at odds with.

            I’ve broken up with guys for less. When Obamacare was passed, the young man I was seeing at the time said, “Well, I don’t understand why everyone *shouldn’t* have health care…” in response to my lamentations about it.

            That was the death knell. Not only did he not understand that the issue was about insurance (not care), but he demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of so many things with that one statement.

            1. Oh, we don’t agree about hardly anything … but the discussions are fun.

              Chemistry and compatibility can be really unexpected and weird. Best to just roll with it when you find someone you enjoy being with.

              My rank ordered list of what’s important in relationships.

              1) She’s not crazy.

              2) Or vindictive and hot tempered?

              3) Did I mention not crazy?

              4) Not being crazy is also great.

              5) Wicked smart is good.

              5) Really nice booty and tits — good.

              176) Agree about politics.

              1. I’m so glad I’m not a man.

                Then again, on the occasions I’ve dated other females, I didn’t have any “not crazy” criteria, and I generally enjoyed myself.

                But I could never settle down with a woman. They always feel too much.

                1. Yeah, living nearly your whole (generally shorter than women) life dealing with testosterone poisoning has its bad sides.

                  Best case: accept you’ll do all sorts of stupid and insane things to be with women, and try to not go overboard wit that, and enjoy the ride.

                  Women perhaps feel too much instead of using logic, but men can be total dickheads.

              2. Your story does not really vindicate your assertion of “not crazy”.

                1. I’m inclined to agree with Mickey Rat, here. The story you told pretty clearly indicates she’s not right in the head, at least.

                  1. Ooooh, I could tell stories about wicked crazy women.

                    You gotta grade on a curve. Locked into voting for TEAM BE RULED isn’t enough to call someone crazy, unless you want to lump around half the country into that category.

                    1. I think you may be labeling massive cognitive dissonance about politics as crazy.

                    2. Gotta grade on a curve…classic. and accurate.

    6. There is no hope for people like that. Might as well drown THEM in a sack.

  7. “I’m shocked. Shocked! Well, not that shocked.”

  8. This morning I was watching people on Bloomberg News expressing their utter bafflement at the lack of business investment in this country.

    It’s a conundrum, it is.

    1. This morning I was watching people on Bloomberg News expressing their utter bafflement at the lack of business investment in this country.

      Its fairly normal for capital expenditures to drop in a pre-election year, and then rebound when companies feel they have a rough-grasp on what the next 4 years are going to be like.

      Unless they were talking about, like, the prior 5year average, compared to a 20yr trend or something.

    2. You know your country’s going down the shitter when they have to punish people for leaving.

      1. Trump’s Wall could work both ways: keep out the messicans and keep in the kulaks and wreckers!

      2. It says a hell of a lot about the mentality of the people in charge when they don’t care to get people to want to stay, they want to threaten them if they try to leave.

        But never forget, Trump is the evil.

    3. I would hold up an 8×10″ glossy of Obama and ask if they’re REALLY baffled at the lack of investment.

  9. Still no news of the NSA hack?

    1. NSA hoarding zero-days, then gets hacked and tools stolen. suh-weet.

      1. We can totally trust them though.

        1. trust them to completely fuck up everything they touch, yes.

    2. These scraps of information raise the question of why the NSA had for years been sitting on vulnerabilities that affect widely used networking gear. They also suggest that the agency may have gone against White House policy on when it is reasonable to keep flaws secret.

      First sentence – Really, you have to ask that?

      Second sentence – Yeah, right…..

  10. Wouldn’t it be great if April 15th was just another day?

    1. Wouldn’t it be great if schools had to hold bake sales to purchase a new bomber?

      1. It will be a beautiful day when the air force bombs all the schools having bake sales.

    2. SLT is even better.

      1. Consumption tax is the best of all.

        1. Nope. Deadweight loss.

          And morally wrong too.

          A case can be made for the SLT that it is neither.

        2. Nope. Deadweight loss.

          And morally wrong too.

          A case can be made for the SLT that it is neither.

          1. Yup. There’s deadweight loss with any tax. And I don’t see why you single out land holdings versus all other property. What is moral about placing all of the tax burden on someone who chooses to hold one type of asset?

            1. 1. In theory there is no deadweight loss with the land tax. I said, in theory, so maybe there is a tiny loss, but the graph says nope.

              2. The moral case is that there is no natural law right to land*, so as such, the single land tax is merely extracting the rents. And as we oppose rent seeking around these parts….

              When it comes to the land, “you didn’t make that” really is accurate. But as Mises said, you have to draw a line and say “after this point, we acknowledge property rights.” I agree, but we can use the rents to fund a small government.

              *I would be happy if someone came up with one that convinced me, but I haven’t seen it.

              1. Ok, so I didn’t make the land. Neither did the government. Why do they get to collect rent?

                1. The argument is that you are the one collecting the rent and that’s what the government is taxing. But until you sell or literally rent the land that’s a hypothetical exercise. And it has the whiff of imputed rent about it which strikes me as immorally compelled commerce.

                  1. Ok, I guess that makes some sense. Just by holding the land, I exclude others from it, which allows me to reap the benefits of holding it without having done anything to earn them per se. But in this formulation, land can’t be sold, either. I don’t own it, so how can I sell it?

                    Improvements drastically complicate the picture, too. The benefit of land with a house on it is much greater than without. Also, a marsh is worth a lot less than prime farmland. But what if I drain the marsh and manage the soil well to turn it to productive agriculture? Contrariwise, what if somebody else would have found the marsh more useful? Does that mean I can’t drain it?

                    I don’t see how a SLT won’t just end up being a property tax, and I don’t see how a national property tax is superior to an income tax. Honestly, I think repealing the 16th Amendment is the “best” solution. Let the Feds levy tariffs, let the states levy what taxes their constitutions permit, and leave the idea of “one true tax” to fantasists.

                    1. Well you don’t own it. You just own the ability to exclude ppl from it. Note that I am not making this argument.

                      All the rest of your points are true. The argument is that you shouldn’t be the beneficiary of land improvements even if they come at your own expense. Regardless you should be punished for the increased value of the land and that punishment theoretically won’t distort economic behavior.

                      Speaking of immorality…

                      All taxation has deadweight loss. I prefer taxes that do not single out specific asset classes or productive behaviors which leaves me with consumption taxes. And yes I realize that in most circumstances consumption taxes are equivalent to proportional income taxes, but there is still a temporal difference.

              2. It changes the market equilibrium price for land. That is unavoidable and deadweight loss.

                If you have no right to land you have no right to the materials that come from that land either. You did not create the elements and compounds. And if you did at a later stage then I think we’re back to a labor theory of value which is problematic.

                But again explain why someone who holds land in a desirable area should bear a disproportionate burden of funding the government over someone who has a fleet of sports cars. The latter’s property is protected and enabled by the same government yet he doesn’t have to pay for it.

                1. IF someone starts to make some semantical argument to me that I don;t actually own what I really own, my inclination is to take that Glock I ‘don’t really own’, loaded with bullets that I also ‘don’t really own’, and shoot that idiot in the head.

                  *Note to DoJ lackeys who don’t have anything better to do: The above is a hypothetical example of my irritation with such arguments. It is not meant to represent any current or future plans to shoot idiots. No matter how deserving.

              3. The moral case is that there is no natural law right to land* …

                … When it comes to the land, “you didn’t make that” really is accurate…

                Rothbard’s homesteading principle seems to fit. In short, assuming unoccupied, unused land, if/when you mix your labor with the land to improve it you transform it into something more than just land. And it is yours by virtue of being worked by your industry, just like mixing your labor with raw materials to create a chair that is yours. As with the chair, you are free to either keep and enjoy the use of the property or you may freely trade it to someone else.

                This would, however, preclude someone claiming, say, 500 acres, only using half an acre for their home, leaving the remaining 499 1/2 acres wild, and denying anyone else the opportunity to homestead any other portion of that land. Properly understood, it would also recognize that abandoned land — land left and neglected to the extent that any capital improvements are no longer of any usefulness — reverts to “unowned” and is available to be homesteaded.

                1. And besides the federal gubmint spends how much on defense? And that ain’t for lambo’s it’s for real estate since a lambo doesn’t have the tax yield over time that similar cost acreage has. Plus acreage means they can confiscate it for high speed rail of desired but used lambo’s are beat to shit

                2. Rothbard’s homesteading principle seems to fit. In short, assuming unoccupied, unused land, if/when you mix your labor with the land to improve it you transform it into something more than just land.

                  “Unoccupied, unused land” isn’t the same as abandoned land. For example, it is perfectly reasonable for me to buy a piece of land specifically to keep it as a nature preserve.

                  The best way to deal with land is like you would deal with any other scarce resource: you treat it as private property and let the market value it.

                  1. Or as a place for Crusty to dispose of all those hookers after he’s finished with them in his basement perhaps?

    3. For real, though, if taxes are gonna be due on April 15th, make April 16th Election Day. Then get rid of paycheck withholding so that most people gotta cut a check to Uncle Sugar every April, and watch actual change happen in Washington.

      1. Or change tax day to Oct 15.

      2. Yas!
        If more people had to write a check for their “tax burden” instead of it just mindlessly being deducted from every paycheck, I’m certain the entire tax system would be a better place.

        1. +1099

    4. Not if it meant a national sales tax.

      1. Big fan of the IRS are you?

        1. They would still exist.

          1. The individual and corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, and the estate and gift taxes would all be eliminated. In their place, a new national sales tax (NST) of 15 percent would be charged on the final purchase of all goods and services at the retail level. There would be a universal rebate for every household that would in effect exempt all consumption up to the poverty level. Households with total expenditures at and below the poverty level would therefore receive a rebate for every penny they paid for the NST.

            Under this new system, April 15 would once again be just another day. Americans would have already paid their federal tax burden at the cash register throughout the course of the year. As a result, individual taxpayers would no longer have to spend countless hours filling out forms?or pay accountants to do so. And they would no longer be required to reveal to the IRS the intimate details of how they earned and spent their money.

            1. Or we could replace all of those AND the state/local sales taxes with an SLT.

              And by replace, I mean with far less total tax revenue.

              And, yes, there would be one day per year where ever landowner would have to pay their tax, but that is true anyway (does any state not have a property tax?).

              1. Can you provide more information on SLT, starting with what it’s an acronym for? Sorry, I just haven’t heard of this yet, and need to at least know what it is..

                1. Single Land Tax.

                  The S is a very important part, as it replaces ALL other taxes.

                  It is a tax on the value of LAND (not property). It was popularized by Henry George.

                  1. Looks like George’s ideas can cut both ways:

                    Echoes of George’s ideas can be found in many strains of progressive economic thought today. For example, activists have proposed creating a so-called Sky Trust that would collect fees from firms that emit carbon dioxide. These firms are using up our common inheritance of a low-CO2 atmosphere, Sky Trust proponents argue, so they owe the public a “rent” that would serve as both an incentive to clean up their emissions and a source of funds for environmental protection efforts or “dividend” payments to the public.

                  2. There is a lot of other things that come into play with full blown Georgism, if you’re interested. Not my particular cup of tea, but pretty interesting. The full justifications of the Georgian SLT is there as well.

                    1. I started reading that, but this line struck me:

                      A land value tax is often said to have progressive tax effects, in that it is paid primarily by the wealthy (the landowners), and it cannot be passed on to tenants, workers, or users of land.

                      How in the hell would that cost not be passed on to tenants, workers, or users of the land? If I own property, and pay taxes on it annually, and someone else is paying me to use that land, you can bet your bottom dollar the taxes are going to be passed on to said user.

                    2. One of many reasons* that I’m not a Georgist.


                    3. Because the supply curve is vertical.

                    4. ^^^That was in response to Unreconstructed.

          2. Since all but five states already have their own sales taxes, the state revenue departments would be the logical choice for collecting the NST. However, they would be fully compensated for their administrative costs by being allowed to keep a certain percentage of the revenue they collect. Businesses would also be reimbursed for their administrative costs.

            The NST would bring an end to the IRS as we know it. The Social Security Administration could collect payroll taxes, and a new agency within the Treasury Department could be set up to administer the collection of NST revenue from the 50 states and to collect excise taxes.

            1. I prefer to roll payroll taxes in as well but that raises the rate to 30% and increases the sticker shock. Which is part of the point but also an impediment.

        2. They would still exist.

        3. He likes his taxes to be socially just.

      2. Fuck sales taxes. I live in one of the very few states in the union that doesn’t have one, and I like it that way.

        1. Big fan of the IRS are you?

          1. I’m a big fan of a low, flat tax.

            And fuck the IRS, too, while we’re at it.

            1. Who’s going to collect the “low flat tax?”

            2. The logic is inescapable.

            3. If by low you mean “zero”, count me in.

              Taxes are theft, so anything higher than zero is immoral.

              1. I call it the “Round Tax” i.e. 0

  11. My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I’m a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can’t believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn’t be happier. Heres what I do,

    ———– http://www.Max43.com

  12. Not enough can be said about how horrid Clinton is on taxes; and by extension, Liberty.

    Fidel/Chavez/Maduro/Clinton. All the same ideology.

    1. Need to convict the Clintons of treason and execute them.

  13. I have yet to hear anyone on the left even acknowledge the existence of OECD statistics on any subject. I guess they’re that damning to the goodthink.

  14. Clinton’s refusal to reform the corporate income tax is stunning.

    You could call it a lot of things, but “stunning” wouldn’t be one of them. I’d be stunned if she did reform the corporate income tax.

  15. I miss the days when Democrats would pretend they weren’t reflexive tax and spend hacks. It’s disturbing to see the masks taken off and them running on naked evil and stupidity.

    1. What’s disturbing is that it doesn’t kill them as a party.

      1. Since they only want to increase taxes on 10-20% of the population to give free crap to the middle 50% of the income distribution, it works out at the polls.

        It’s also not surprising that this happens; the Founding Fathers already saw this as a risk.

  16. I got a double hit of the squirrels.

    Triple if this doesnt post right.

  17. The income tax code is a perfect representation of our political death spiral. EVERYBODY hates it but NOBODY wants to give up their piece, ergo it festers and worsens with no end in sight.

  18. The beatings will continue until morale improves!

  19. Its cool how the left is too far right on the laffer curve (so is the right, to be fair, but I don’t find that as amusing)

  20. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

  21. Why are Reason writers always so fucking surprised when Progressives suggest shitty policies?

  22. This article should be titled “Hillary Clinton’s Terrible {var1}.”. Then we could use it over and over it again.

  23. She lost me at “more”.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.